Tamron 17-50 and Sigma 18-50

Reportage · 06-03-2009, 07:47 AM

On my side of the world the Pentax has only 1 year warranty and prohibitively expensive compared to these 2.

The main difference is the Sigma is 72mm diameter so does it help better in low light?

any users of both can share?

kthung · 06-03-2009, 08:07 AM

The filter size (72mm sigma vs 67mm tamron) does not affect how the lens performs in low light.

Enc0der · 06-03-2009, 08:14 AM

Why not?
I tend to believe that bigger filter size (actually, bigger front element) can "catch" more light in a given time...

Venturi · 06-03-2009, 08:51 AM

As far as quantity of light transmitted, 50mm @ f/2.8 is 50mm @ f/2.8 regardless of the size of the front element.

Enc0der · 06-03-2009, 08:59 AM

And in other aspects? any differences between different front elements' size?

Venturi · 06-03-2009, 09:13 AM

The cost of filters.

Seriously, I think it would be spurious to make any qualitative generalizations about lenses based solely upon the size of the front element.

krypticide · 06-03-2009, 12:31 PM

Well, light absorption by the glass elements actually can make a difference. In theory, a lens with the same f-stop will let in the same amount of light, but you'll find that different lenses will yield slightly different exposures at the same setting. This is due to inherent light absorption by the glass, so in cinematography, they use T-stops instead of f-stops as a measure of light that is transmitted through the lens.

Venturi · 06-03-2009, 03:30 PM

True, but isn't some of that at least partly to be attributed to the properties of the glass used itself? And the number of groups/elements? and the coatings used?

That's why I stated what I did above. You can't just say a lens with a 68mm front element is going to have better/worse transmittance characteristics than one with a 59mm element. There are many other variables involved than mere diameter.

kthung · 06-03-2009, 04:50 PM

Right, in general the difference between the exposures for either lens aren't great enough to take into consideration. I would rather consider size/weight, price, 17mm vs. 18mm, close focusing distance/max magnification, etc.

Venturi · 06-03-2009, 07:36 PM

Just a couple other things to consider; one objective the other subjective.

- The Tamron comes with a six year warranty and I know from experience no questions and fast turn around.
- The Tamron is occasionally compared favorably against the DA*16-50; I have never seen the same with the Sigma.

simdavid · 06-03-2009, 08:09 PM

Take a look at this

My thought on the Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 EX DC MACRO - ClubSNAP Photography Forums

DaddyO · 06-04-2009, 09:22 AM

I have only the Tamron, not the Sigma, and I've only had the Tamron for a month or so, but I will share a few initial impressions:

It's definitely sharp as hell. Even at f/2.8, it's quite good, and just gets better from there as you stop down. I find that it produces nice colors, and good contrast, too. AF is pretty quick and accurate, though it could be quieter. I'm very pleased with the lens so far, though I have a few small gripes. First, the lens tends to underexpose in my opinion. Setting EV Comp. to +0.5 corrects it for most shots, but occasionally a full +1.0 is required. I can accept this in exchange for the lens's other good qualities, though. Also, the lens hood is kind of cheesy. It hasn't happened yet, but I always feel like I'm going to crush it with my vice-like grip whenever I attach or detach it. Pentax definitely makes the best hoods for their lenses. Lastly, my copy of the lens does have a slight front-focus issue. I have corrected for it in the K20D's Custom menu and all is well, but it is worth mentioning. Despite my few niggles, I would still heartily recommend this lens. I considered the Sigma, too, and would have exchanged the Tamron for it, if the Tamron didn't work out. I only chose to try the Tamron first because I already had some 67 mm filters, so it was going to be more convenient if the Tamron worked for me, and it has.

res3567 · 06-04-2009, 09:43 PM

Originally posted by Venturi

Just a couple other things to consider; one objective the other subjective.

- The Tamron comes with a six year warranty and I know from experience no questions and fast turn around.
- The Tamron is occasionally compared favorably against the DA*16-50; I have never seen the same with the Sigma.

In your opinion. Tamron or Pentax?

Jewelltrail · 06-04-2009, 10:08 PM

I have been shooting with the Tamron 17-50 & k20 for a little over a year now. I like the lens a lot & much of what is said above I agree with. I have not had to deal with Tamron's service, but do like knowing I have a 6-year warranty with the lens.

I have not shot with the Da 16-50 or the Sigma 18-50, but did a lot of research beofre I bought the Tammy. I have to believe you would be happy with any of lenses discussed here.

Venturi · 06-04-2009, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by res3567

In your opinion. Tamron or Pentax?

For me there's no question; the Tamron. My choice though is colored by the fact I don't much care for how Sigma lenses "feel" in my hands. Hate the powdercoat finish they use and I just don't care for how they "handle". I know it may seem trivial but if a camera or lens doesn't feel right in my hands I'm not going to be effective with it regardless of how good it can perform.

06-03-2009, 07:47 AM	#1
Reportage Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 739	Tamron 17-50 and Sigma 18-50 On my side of the world the Pentax has only 1 year warranty and prohibitively expensive compared to these 2. The main difference is the Sigma is 72mm diameter so does it help better in low light? any users of both can share?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Tamron 17-50mm, Tamron 28-75mm, Sigma 17-70mm, which lens for my trip to Greece?	macky112	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	15	11-20-2011 03:08 PM
For Sale - Sold: Sigma 24-60mm F2.8 (K mount) and Tamron Adaptall 24mm F2.5 with Tamron P/K ada	pxpaulx	Sold Items	4	08-27-2010 08:47 PM
Tamron 18-250 vs Sigma/Tamron 70-300 ?	simonkit	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	09-04-2007 07:12 PM

06-03-2009, 08:07 AM	#2
kthung Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 359	The filter size (72mm sigma vs 67mm tamron) does not affect how the lens performs in low light.

06-03-2009, 08:14 AM	#3
Enc0der Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 107	Why not? I tend to believe that bigger filter size (actually, bigger front element) can "catch" more light in a given time...

06-03-2009, 08:51 AM	#4
Venturi Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Tulsa, OK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,636	As far as quantity of light transmitted, 50mm @ f/2.8 is 50mm @ f/2.8 regardless of the size of the front element.

06-03-2009, 08:59 AM	#5
Enc0der Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 107	And in other aspects? any differences between different front elements' size?

06-03-2009, 09:13 AM	#6
Venturi Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Tulsa, OK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,636	The cost of filters. Seriously, I think it would be spurious to make any qualitative generalizations about lenses based solely upon the size of the front element.

06-03-2009, 12:31 PM	#7
krypticide Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,079	Well, light absorption by the glass elements actually can make a difference. In theory, a lens with the same f-stop will let in the same amount of light, but you'll find that different lenses will yield slightly different exposures at the same setting. This is due to inherent light absorption by the glass, so in cinematography, they use T-stops instead of f-stops as a measure of light that is transmitted through the lens.

06-03-2009, 03:30 PM	#8
Venturi Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Tulsa, OK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,636	True, but isn't some of that at least partly to be attributed to the properties of the glass used itself? And the number of groups/elements? and the coatings used? That's why I stated what I did above. You can't just say a lens with a 68mm front element is going to have better/worse transmittance characteristics than one with a 59mm element. There are many other variables involved than mere diameter.

06-03-2009, 04:50 PM	#9
kthung Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 359	Right, in general the difference between the exposures for either lens aren't great enough to take into consideration. I would rather consider size/weight, price, 17mm vs. 18mm, close focusing distance/max magnification, etc.

06-03-2009, 07:36 PM	#10
Venturi Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Tulsa, OK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,636	Just a couple other things to consider; one objective the other subjective. - The Tamron comes with a six year warranty and I know from experience no questions and fast turn around. - The Tamron is occasionally compared favorably against the DA*16-50; I have never seen the same with the Sigma.

06-03-2009, 08:09 PM	#11
simdavid Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 36	Take a look at this My thought on the Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 EX DC MACRO - ClubSNAP Photography Forums

06-04-2009, 09:22 AM	#12
DaddyO Inactive Account Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Marietta, GA (USA) Photos: Albums Posts: 44	I have only the Tamron, not the Sigma, and I've only had the Tamron for a month or so, but I will share a few initial impressions: It's definitely sharp as hell. Even at f/2.8, it's quite good, and just gets better from there as you stop down. I find that it produces nice colors, and good contrast, too. AF is pretty quick and accurate, though it could be quieter. I'm very pleased with the lens so far, though I have a few small gripes. First, the lens tends to underexpose in my opinion. Setting EV Comp. to +0.5 corrects it for most shots, but occasionally a full +1.0 is required. I can accept this in exchange for the lens's other good qualities, though. Also, the lens hood is kind of cheesy. It hasn't happened yet, but I always feel like I'm going to crush it with my vice-like grip whenever I attach or detach it. Pentax definitely makes the best hoods for their lenses. Lastly, my copy of the lens does have a slight front-focus issue. I have corrected for it in the K20D's Custom menu and all is well, but it is worth mentioning. Despite my few niggles, I would still heartily recommend this lens. I considered the Sigma, too, and would have exchanged the Tamron for it, if the Tamron didn't work out. I only chose to try the Tamron first because I already had some 67 mm filters, so it was going to be more convenient if the Tamron worked for me, and it has.

06-04-2009, 09:43 PM	#13
res3567 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Houston Tx. Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,876	Originally posted by Venturi Just a couple other things to consider; one objective the other subjective. - The Tamron comes with a six year warranty and I know from experience no questions and fast turn around. - The Tamron is occasionally compared favorably against the DA*16-50; I have never seen the same with the Sigma. In your opinion. Tamron or Pentax?

06-04-2009, 10:08 PM	#14
Jewelltrail Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Rhode Island Photos: Albums Posts: 4,180	I have been shooting with the Tamron 17-50 & k20 for a little over a year now. I like the lens a lot & much of what is said above I agree with. I have not had to deal with Tamron's service, but do like knowing I have a 6-year warranty with the lens. I have not shot with the Da 16-50 or the Sigma 18-50, but did a lot of research beofre I bought the Tammy. I have to believe you would be happy with any of lenses discussed here.

06-04-2009, 10:13 PM	#15
Venturi Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Tulsa, OK Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,636	Originally posted by res3567 In your opinion. Tamron or Pentax? For me there's no question; the Tamron. My choice though is colored by the fact I don't much care for how Sigma lenses "feel" in my hands. Hate the powdercoat finish they use and I just don't care for how they "handle". I know it may seem trivial but if a camera or lens doesn't feel right in my hands I'm not going to be effective with it regardless of how good it can perform.